By: Dr. Sanchita Ghatak ( Associate Editor-ICN Group )
LUCKNOW: From a lot of hue and cry, agitation, terrorizing , threatening the actors to chop off the head and nose to deleting 70 shots, brilliantly covering the waist line of the ghoomar dancer and even removing the I factor from the name finally Sanjay Leela Bhansali magnum opus in released.
The audiences are awestruck with the galore of glamour, which is a usually very common in Bollywood movies like this with a historical touch. Further 3D screening gave it a more realistic look and got the movie 30 crore after the first days. A commoner like me is actually in a state of confusion that was all those agitations real or just a marketing gimmicks to accentuate the audience to get quick popularity and hot the box office.
But basically what struck me most was that the agitation by Karni Sena – a group of men to ban the movie on the pretext that the movie shows distorted history and not by feminists all over. Had the director mentioned a disclaimer stating “all characters are fictitious” would not have fulminated such quivers? Which has been actually done now.
Where are my dear feminist friends of the society gone? Does that mean their shouting feminism is another set of gimmicks?
The reason of my weird thought process is that the protagonist of the movie has been shown performing Jauhar- which was a 13th century tradition followed by the Rajput women to save their dignity and pride by burning themselves alive and not succumb to the invader. For me it’s a simple case of suicide. Surprisingly it’s somewhat like sati where a women burns herself off on the pyre of her dead husband, again the reason being “saving dignity”.
Are the women folks so fragile that they need to die so nobody can violate her chastity? A Rajput is perceived as brave heart and if we look at Laxmibai or Durgavati they fought back and then embraced death – “Veergati” as they call it. A very brave and bold step to take. Salutes to those brave hearts.
Another question that is repeatedly haunting me is that Padmavati asked for permission to perform Jauhar from her husband- permission to die. Does a woman have no right to live or die by her own will? Was she really considered as a property of a man and not as an individual? Such atrocity against women is being displayed such glamorously.
In the context of art or literature or history why is it required to glorify something that denies the right of a women to live with such pomp and show? When Sati was criminalized during 1829-1861 then Jauhar a similar act was glorified in the current time. Why did the SC not ponder over this fact is still not clear to me. Sati prevention act 1988 has criminalized any type aiding, abetting and glorification of sati. I felt the law being a little misogynist.
Jauhar like acts are still prevalent in our nation as honor killing, women jumping in wells to protect themselves from getting kidnapped, father and husbands beheading wives and daughter to protect their virginity.
If someone says, “hey it’s was just a movie, we watch and forget” then why was a bus full of small kids attacked, why was a man hanged from Chittorgarh fort and why so much of violence?
My only question and concern is that do we glorify such acts which are banned in Indian penal code or we make more of such depictions were the other gender displayed bravery and valor. The plot, story and the significance did not allure me at all. Do not know about my other women folks who may totally disagree to my thoughts but I felt it to be a sensational thoughtless glorification of a fearful and sad part of our history.
